There are a lot of negative stereotypes about our University which alienate anyone other than the straight, white, middle-class cis-gender man. But my first term and a bit at this institution was filled with a certain steadfast calm: naively, I had not had to face any of this prejudice head-on.

Attending a Burns Night dinner last week as a guest at another college, I was, for the first time here, witness to explicit sexism. I was not previously familiar with the traditions of Burns Night, nor was I familiar with the nature of this college’s formalities, including a high table of professors, tutors and a monk. Following tradition, a grace was followed by piping, and the age-old cutting of the haggis took place, accompanied by Burns’ ‘Address to Haggis’. After dining, speeches were made. These traditionally take the form of a man’s ‘Address to the Lassies’, followed by a woman’s reply. 

What followed, on this evening meant to be the celebration of a national poet (albeit a promiscuous one), was sickening. The hall was struck with outlandish, blatant misogyny. The ‘Address to the Lassies’ speech, given by a male undergraduate student, was a list saturated with name after name of female members of the college, alongside the males with whom they had slept or performed other sexual acts. Few details were spared. Identities were paraded. Ridiculous puns were made out of the nature of these activities, where they had taken place, and to what success, always from the male perspective within the sexual act.

During this speech, supposedly ‘celebrating’ the female students, names of human beings (many of whom were present) were being thrown around as if they were mere formulations of letters – as if they bore no relation to any living person holding pride and a conscience. Often women were named in twos or threes alongside one man, as if these women were trophies to be carried around and heralded by the men. All hail the man, while we slut-shame the woman.

Jeering and reckless laughter began. Sitting in that room, with howls and shrieks reverberating off the walls (on which are hung portraits of old white men), I could only be reminded of scenes from the Houses of Parliament: the kind of animalistic, laddish behaviour on show when debating serious issues of ordinary people. It is now very easy to see where the jeering temperament of MPs comes from.

The response of the other students – including a large proportion of women – was what shocked me most. Initially, some seemed bewildered at what they heard. But soon, when it was evident that everyone else in the hall was cackling away, they all joined in. Admittedly, members of the high table looked sheepish, but not one intervened. No one took a stand to question why the speaker felt it necessary to objectify his peers in this way, ridiculing the behaviour of his friends and colleagues in the most public of college settings. Instead, a frightening cult-like atmosphere was apparent: if anyone did feel uncomfortable with the situation, they were not to show it. This fiercely inward-looking culture seems to tear freedom of opinion from all those within its reach. The college in question is a very small community. In this elite bubble, with these violating opinions spoken the loudest, it is hard to imagine how anyone could think for themselves.

Speaking to three female students of the College afterwards, the general consensus was one of bemusement. They agreed that previous speeches had never been of such an explicit sexual nature, but seemed surprised by my contempt. Their sentiment – ‘I would be embarrassed if I were named, but I wasn’t – so I found it funny’ – is representative of a wider social problem. Should we just look and laugh along, as long as it’s not us in the firing line?

Following this initial speech, a female student stood to give her traditional ‘response’. This spokeswoman of female students played up to the stereotype her male peer had laid out to her, implying that the females of her college are ‘easy’, willing to do anything to get with any guy. She ‘joked’ that the ladies of her college would go for any male – tall, short, young or old – even referring to members of the SCR as being no barrier to the female students’ desires. It is not often that a woman is heard objectifying her own kind.

There is no place for sexual acts to be mocked through a demeaning, misogynistic mouthpiece, especially not in a university, which should be encouraging progressive thought and intelligence. The more women are slut-shamed and mocked for sexual pursuits, the more we distance ourselves from any sense of common humanity. The men mentioned in these speeches seemed to gain credibility, whereas it was implied the women had done things they should be ashamed of.

Many matters like this are excused as ‘jokes’ or with the pitiless term ‘banter’ that is thrown around so often. Arguing for comedic value is akin to pushing the problem under the carpet and pretending the situation is jovial. There is nothing light-hearted about explicit, intended misogyny.

As a woman sitting in that room, I felt humiliated and violated. ‘Degraded’ – to be treated with disrespect – hardly bears the brunt of it. As a human being sitting in that room, I felt wholeheartedly mortified. It troubles me that this evening angered and upset me so, because the members of the college hardly gave a second thought to the speeches, carrying on with their evening’s drinking. It is ultimately worrying that I felt like the exception in this situation, because it should be this disgustingly misogynistic behaviour that is the exception we strive to abandon.

Every day I read something in the press concerning women’s rights. If we are living in a time where gender equality is still considered a relevant issue (as well it should be, while sexism still exists), I’m asking why there are pockets of our university where misogyny rules supreme. I’m asking why any human could find it appropriate to humiliate, disrespect and objectify his peers, and why nobody thought this was an offence. And, if we want this to change, I’m calling for the whole student community to start talking about this very real and very dangerous problem with much more urgency. 

The Church of England has expressed mixed feelings after its prayers for ultra-atheist Richard Dawkins were heard and answered by heaven. 

Famed biologist Mr. Dawkins, 74, suffered a minor stroke earlier this month, and the Church caused even more minor controversy when it was accused of “trolling” Mr. Dawkins after it tweeted believers’ encouragement to pray for him to get better. However, after it emerged that he would probably make a full recovery, hardline elements within the Church have expressed dismay at offering an old foe such an easy way out.

The Archangel Gabriel, who is God’s chief spokesperson when He is busy dispensing righteous justice, said in a press release, “The Kingdom of Heaven is pleased to announce that Richard Dawkins will be the recipient of a full reprieve from God’s justice. At a time where heavenly resources are stretched thin and prayer requests are at an all-time high, we have once again met our target of responding in under four hours.”

When pressed for comment on Mr. Dawkins’ atheism, the Archangel pointed to Sepp Blatter and Rupert Murdoch, noting it would be “hypocritical” for God to let such evil old men live whilst a learned man died, even if he did hold “some crazy ideas about the nature of creation and so-called ‘evolution’.”

Meanwhile, dissenting voices have arisen from a more conservative faction of the Church of England, which apparently is a thing that exists. One hardliner told The OxStew, “ I thought that having to sit and watch women wearing purple gowns and saying certain special words was the biggest indignity the Church of England could foist upon me, but I was wrong. Apparently, now we have to respect our enemies and pray for them to recover from potentially lifethreatening illnesses.

“What a load of bollocks. I might just switch sides and join Pope Francis and his lot. I mean, at least they know how to shame female sexuality and punish people for their natural bodily urges. There’s none of this happy-clappy shit.

“Whatever happened to burning our enemies at the stake and throwing young women into ponds? It’s PC gone mad.”

The incident is not the only recent controversy in which Christianity has been embroiled. Earlier this week, the Pope announced that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was “not a Christian”. When confronted with the Pontiff’s comments, Trump was dismissive, responding, “What authority does he have?”

Mr. Dawkins could not be reached for comment, but a source indicated that he was spending most of his time going on long walks on his own, lost deep in thought. One close friend told The Oxstew, “He wants to build a wall around his faith… and make the Muslims pay for it.”

As I munch on my bacon and cheddar baguette (with lashings of ketchup), sitting opposite me are James Morris and Rob Sayers. You might know them better as Jim and Bob, the culinary legends who have brought baguette-shaped love to the city of Oxford. Jimbob’s opened on 4th April 2014, and soon shot to the top of the Oxford Tripadvisor charts. “We always had a top five aim,” says Jim. “It was great when we got to number one.” Perhaps a victim of their own success, they now stand at a still impressive number four; “Sometimes we get average reviews that say everything’s nice, but it’s a sandwich shop. And that’s very annoying – that’s not the point of Tripadvisor”.

Has Tripadvisor been useful, then? “It’s such a good thing for us. When the students go away in the summer, you’ve got all these people who’ve been coming in two, three times a week, and suddenly going away for 10 weeks.” Bob continues, “But suddenly you’ve got hordes of tourists coming in – and it’s because they’ve seen us high up on Tripadvisor. It’s a really good thing, and one thing I like about Oxford is that there’s been no Tripadvisor sabotage here. I was chatting to a guy from Surrey last week who said that there all the restaurants rate each other negatively. As far as I’m aware that’s not going on here.” I’m half way through my bacon sandwich. It’s damn good.

Jim’s lived in Oxford since 2012, and Bob moved over in 2014. “I really like Oxford” – Bob again – “Though I think there’s some troubles at the moment, what with the rebuilding of the Westgate Centre, and the roads. Every shopkeeper in the city has been saying that shopping’s massively down – around 8 per cent, which is a lot.” Jim brings a more positive note: “We feel like we’re bucking the trend a little bit; our sales are up all the time”. Why could that be? “We try never to stand still. We’re always adding to what we have – ice cream, then milkshakes, now burgers and an evening menu”.

And the innovation doesn’t stop there – Jim and Bob gave me an exclusive – they plan to open up shop in uni parks in the summer “We’ll be in the cricket pavilion. We’re going to bring the sandwiches over, have hot drinks and ice cream, and hopefully an alcohol license too. We’re thinking about having events, maybe a hog roast in the evenings; a barbecue on a Sunday.” They sound excited about this new project.

As I hoover up the last morsels of my favourite sandwich, I can’t not ask what theirs is. For Bob, it’s the lemon chicken and pepper. Jim tells me about the Pauly – bacon, humus, gherkins and jalapeños – named after a customer called Paul who placed the order on opening day. He came back six months later to discover, to his surprise, that there was a sandwich named after him.

One day, I can only hope that there will be a bacon and cheddar baguette called the Willy on the menu. Actually, on second thoughts, maybe not.

As a special offer for Cherwell readers, if you mention this article at Jimbob’s for the next seven days after 3pm, you’ll receive a 30% discount.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13000%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Cartoonist’s note: As a Jewish student at Oxford, a Labour supporter and the creator of this cartoon, I can see that the principle behind it may be wrong. The problem here is that the image conflates the Israeli-Palestine conflict, with recent accusations against the Oxford University Labour Club, with a two-dimensional parody of what it means to be Jewish. Sadly, the problem that Alex Chalmers has recently exposed at Oxford is much the same. Just as we recognise the grotesque antisemitic stereotype intruding on this political cartoon, so must we recognise ‘Anti-semitism masquerading at Politics.’ Just as we recognise a map with a Jewish nose, so must we react when international conflict sparks racism at home.

Ella Moriah Baron

The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day was ‘don’t stand by’, reflecting the fact that last year saw a spike in what was an already rising tide of anti-Semitic attacks. Whilst most may presume that anti-Semitism is a thing of the past in the UK, the Community Security Trust – a charity which monitors anti-Semitism – recorded a 53 per cent rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the first six months of last year, from 2014. 

Now, place this in the context of the Facebook resignation post of Alex Chalmers, now ex-OULC Co-Chair, where he reported that a former Co-Chair had asserted that “most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf.”

The Israeli Apartheid movement’s website states that it “hope[d] to make Israeli Apartheid Week 2016 a powerful contribution to the Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice.” And yet how can the movement be seen as ‘just’ if it continues to be supported by a discourse based on prejudice, stereotype and bigotry? The reported use of the word ‘Zio’ in OULC is unforgivable: it is a word that educated and progressive individuals should not use, especially not during a debate based on interrogating complex geopolitics, seeking fairness and freedom. Those who want justice for a people they see as oppressed, purely based on their national identity, surely must see the hypocrisy of attacking a race of people for their ethnic and cultural identity? 

It is an exhausting way to have a discussion, having to remind people repeatedly that not all Jews are Zionists and that not all pro-Israelis are Jewish. Yes, Zionism has a link with a specific sense of Jewish identity, but even those of us who are pro-Israel balk at some of the state’s actions. In the same way that being British does not mean you support every single action of the Conservative government, being Israeli does not imply complicity in every act of violence that the state commits against Palestinians. A further layer of separation: Jewish does not mean Israeli, Jewish does not mean Zionist. Jewish means Jewish heritage. It might mean practising the religion; equally, it might not. It does not connote a specific political position. To treat Israeli nationality or Zionist thought as synonymous with Jewish identity is ignorant and reductive to what is a deeply important discussion.

Use of the word ‘Zionist’ is also hugely problematic. Zionism can be cultural as well as political; in its cultural context, Zionism asserts Israel can be built on a secular Jewish culture and history, but, as Ahad Ha’am stated, cultural Zionists strive for “a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews”. Therefore, Zionism is not purely a bulldozing political movement concerned with the future of the Jewish people alone, but instead can be an inclusive movement.

Using ‘Zionist’ as a pejorative term, or discussing, as the aforementioned former OULC Co-Chair did, “the Zionists”, relies upon stereotypes and generalisations. In many ways, ‘Zionist’ has replaced the word ‘Jew’ in mainstream anti-Semitic thought; as the Oxford JSoc reported on their Facebook page, a member of OULC asserted there was a ‘New York-Tel Aviv axis’ which rigs elections, asserting that there should be an awareness of “the influence wielded over elections by high net-worth Jewish individuals”. Not only does he treat Zionist, Israeli and Jewish synonymously, but he then asserts that it was “not anti-Semitic” to allege that there is an international Jewish conspiracy.

This is how anti-semitism creeps into pro-Palestinian movements: when you begin to embed Israel into a view of the world shaded by flagrantly anti-semitic texts like The Elders of Zion you lose integrity. You lose integrity because you are relying on racist, prejudiced and simply untrue stereotypes and conspiracy theories to progress your argument, rather than relying on fact.

It is easy, when we see political situations in absolutist terms, to be tempted to use hyperbole: rhetorically, it’s a perfectly sound instinct. However, by demonising Israel in these extreme terms, it risks becoming part of the aforementioned anti-semitic discourse. If, like the OULC, you wish to compare it to apartheid, take specific examples of human rights abuses and compare them. Generalisations are hugely problematic, particularly with some of the examples I’ve seen where Israelis have been compared to the Nazis. Instead highlight specific policies and talk about how they affect Palestinians. If by ‘like Nazis’ you mean ‘treat Palestinians like they’re not human’ then specify this. Inflammatory language, such as slurs, does not help the discussion evolve. In fact, as we’ve seen with OULC, it corrupts what is meant to be a meaningful course of action.

If you take one thing away from reading this please let it be this: Jewish, Zionist and Israeli are not the same thing. You can be one, two, or all of these, but they are not synonymous. Attacking Jews because of your anger against Israel is unhelpful and anti-progressive. Relying on anti-semitic stereotypes to create anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli discourse is also inflammatory and stagnating. 

As such, I implore you: please, treat Israel’s issues like you’d treat South Africa’s, America’s, or Iran’s. Please don’t treat them as the fault of the entire Jewish people, or see them as entirely condoned by anyone who is pro-Israel, or identifies as a Zionist. This is a hugely nuanced and complex issue that requires frank, open discussion. And nothing can be achieved if you root that discussion in prejudice and racism. Be a mensch, don’t stand by if you hear anti-semitism beginning to permeate pro-Palestinian politics. Stand up for justice and freedom, for everyone.